posted 23 September 2001 10:05 AM
I finally figured out what is wrong with Markbo’s (and so many others’ attitude). I would call it “Bully in the schoolyard” syndrome, or “Bull in the China shop” phenomenon or just simply: vigilante justice.

The basic premise of the attitude is: “I know what is right, I am infallible, I know what should be done, I will go ahead and do it (killing whoever is in the way if necessary) and everyone who disagrees is against me”.

Most of the time they mean well, in Markbo’s case I am sure he does. He sees evil and suffering and wants to help. His heart is at the right place.

His problem is arrogance and double standards.

Arrogance means he can not imagine making a mistake and doing harm instead of good. He is so convinced he is right that he is willing to disregard everyone else and bypass whatever safety features mankind managed to build up over the centuries.

Arrogance also means that he is willing to force his “right” on other communities if necessary for their own good (maybe the Afghanis do not want to be liberated by the US – who could blame them for not wanting Hollywood culture and the IMF forcing everyone to grow coffee-beans for American breakfast tables while they are on the verge of starvation)

Double standards means that while he assumes the right to barge into the China Store of the Middle East and throw his weight around (to stomp out evil) he would reject, out of hand, to extend this right to any other nation. There is plenty of evil in both US and Canada but I am sure he would be outraged if any foreign power (large or small) wanted to ”take over” our country , “eliminate our rulers”, “arrest our citizens”, “assassinate our evil-doers”, liberate us from Mike Harris.

Arrogance and double standards are a very dangerous combination.

It leads to vigilante “justice”. It leads to lynching. It leads to the KKK. It leads to Oklahoma City.

We are all impatient. We all would like to see justice done, evil punished, innocents protected, preferably yesterday.

But there is no shortcuts to democracy. The planet has been covered with blood and the graves of millions slaughtered because people were impatient and wanted shortcuts.

Democracy is the only system that has a chance to work (slowly, inefficiently, peacefully).

But it is not enough to honour democracy within our own country. We have to extend democracy to cover the whole planet (this is the kind of globalization we want!).

There has to be a democracy among nations, regardless of their size and wealth and military power (just like my vote counts as much as yours, regardless which of us is bigger and stronger).

Bush and his ilk is mouthing off for democracy, while blatantly disregarding international agreements reached at the UN and they trample all over the world with their big stick.

Face it people, if we condone it, we are no better than a school-yard bully, no matter how noble our intentions are.

posted 23 September 2001 11:15 AM
You make it sound like it is "I, I, I" when the main standard here is against unilateralism.

quote:Bush and his ilk is mouthing off for democracy, while blatantly disregarding international agreements reached at the UN and they trample all over the world with their big stick.

180 degrees opposite. The U.S. opting out of 1 or 2 U.N. agreements because they are proven to be flawed is nothing compared to the work they are doing now to ensure they receive global support for their actions now.

If the U.S. was as isolationist as you make them sound they would and could have already acted. The meetings they are having now with the rest of the world prove me right and prove you wrong.

The U.S. opted out of KYOTO and is against establishing a world court. Big Deal. They have given their reasons and concerns with both treaties and the world has not responded. They are negotiating tough with the russians over an antibalistic missile treaty signed in 1972 The treaty is with Russia, not with anybody else. Do you think that once a treaty is signed it is wrong to ever try to negotiate a new one? Nonsense.

The problem is that everybody wants to get rid of terrorism but some want there to be absolutely no cost in this effort. Some want there to be no action to end terrorism until the U.S. can prove the action it will take will be completely perfect in every way. THat is unrealistic, utopian nonsense.

1. Just because your not perfect does not mean you lose the right to defend yourself against immediate threats.

2. You don' have to wait until you correct all your shortcomings before you defend yourself.

3. Self defense is allowable even if you have not perfected the means by which you defend yourself.

The point is you make the effort to do the best you can. The U.S. is proving they are doing that right now.

posted 23 September 2001 11:37 AM
Markbo, I am so carefully constructing chains of logic for you, but you keep ignoring the chain and keep answering individual arguments, taken out of context.

The whole chain in its entirety is my statement and, as a mathematical proof, need to be followed from step to step to find if there is a flaw in it.

Your mind is stubbornly stuck in the groove of the events on Sep 11, the Taliban and the current situation.

I am talking about the big picture of principles, one step removed from the current blood and gore.

I am using the Scientific Method, for crying out loud, to suggest solutions not just this one calamity, but all those still coming.

But you don't want to talk theory, you want specifics relating to this particular incident.

OK, I will give you some specifics. Here comes an essay that answers some of your earlier questions.

.....................

The United States and Middle East: Why Do "They" Hate Us?

By Stephen R. Shalom

The list below presents specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long-standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.) The list also excludes actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because Israel has been the leading or second-ranking recipient of U.S. aid for many years and has received U.S. high-tech weaponry and the diplomatic benefit of U.S. veto power in the Security Council.

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1963: U.S. reported to gives Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.

1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt.

1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.

1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and two Libyan planes shot down. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing two, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing more than 10,000 civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.

1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declares that "the price is worth it."

1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.

posted 23 September 2001 11:54 AM
And here is another list for you Markbo, if you want specifics.

...........................

THE SPEECH GEORGE W. BUSH COULD GIVE: By Doug Morris

"...a PARTIAL list of the results of our commitment to violence includes: Korea – millions killed. Vietnam – millions killed. Cambodia – hundreds of thousands killed. Laos – hundreds of thousands killed. Iraq – hundreds of thousands killed. Guatemala – hundreds of thousands killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki – hundreds of thousands killed. East Timor – hundreds of thousands killed. Nicaragua – tens of thousands killed. El Salvador – tens of thousands killed. Colombia – tens of thousands killed. Dominican Republic – thousands killed. Somalia – thousands killed. Haiti – thousands killed. Yugoslavia – thousands killed. Panama – hundreds killed. And let us not forget the ways in which we have mistreated the Cuban people for over 40 years now with our embargo and repeated acts of terrorism. Let us remember my father’s words during the buildup to the US attack on Iraq: “there will be no negotiations…what we say goes.” “No negotiations” simply means we prefer violence. “What we say goes” expresses the arrogance, chauvinism and mystique of invincibility that has separated the US from the world. Both views express the notion that the US is above international law and the UN Charter, outside the family of nations. Is it any wonder that Harvard professor Samuel Huntington said that in the eyes of most of the world the US is seen as “THE rogue superpower,” considered “THE single greatest external threat to their societies”? The world quakes in its boots wondering when we will attack, and what form of violence will ensue: cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, chemical or biological agents, nuclear bombs, F18’s, F22’s, B52’s, fumigation campaigns, IMF/World Bank “Structural Adjustment Programs,” or “Austerity Programs,” embargoes, sanctions, disappearances, assassinations, massacres, tortures, cultural cooptation or erasure, etc., etc., etc...."

posted 23 September 2001 12:06 PM
I'm listening to your points, I would accuse you of the not listening to mine. But lets look at your most recent points. I won't go too far back not because I concede earlier points but because I find them irrelevant now.

quote:1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.

So everybody in the world agreed they did a good thing. There was no cause to negotiate Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, there was only a cause to end it. I don't understand the point of this factoid. Unless it is to celebrate the good of the U.S.

quote:1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declares that "the price is worth it."

Sanctions were put on by the U.N. again this was the OPPOSITE of a unilateral action. I do however agree that it was an imperfect action that was the result of not finishing the job by overthrowing Saddam. Why would you even consider putting the blame on people suffering on the U.N. or U.S. when the blame lies solely at Saddams feet. He built palaces while his people starved. He could end the sanctions easily by cooperating with the U.N. He is to blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people, no one else. Hopefully the U.S. has learned from the mistake of not overthrowing the corrupt governments who oppress there own people and will not repeat this mistake by leaving the Taleban in power even if they hand over Bin Laden.

quote:1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.

Why on earth would you use the word "alleged". It was quite real.

quote:President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

After two months of investigation and mounting evidence, Clinton became convinced during two "exhaustive and exhausting" meetings last week that Iraq was indeed behind a foiled car-bomb plot to kill Bush during his visit to Kuwait April 14-16, a senior administration official said.

quote:1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

Whats the point of that post.

quote:1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.

They claimed they had soil samples. If they are wrong the owner of the plant will be compensated. Sudan is not an innocent party here. They also have terrorist bases and an oppressive society.

Yeah you can point out all of these items but it still has nothing to do with the justification for American retaliation.

You want to look at things in context of the bigger picture but you fail to realize that all of the U.S. actions are being taken in the context of receiving more global support than any other country has ever sought.

That is the true standard. Not whether it you have a right to arrest someone in another country. You have to look at the context of the action.

What would you have us do, Negotiate with the Taleban, they have only one demand, that we die. How far are you willing to compromise on that demand?

Markbo, you really think the USA would openly admit to a mistake like that?

You yourself, the defender of the American way, should be able to see that the USA never admits weakness in any way, shape or form. You even say the USA should NEVER exhibit weakness, that it should respond from a position of strength.

Funny you should so naively claim that the owner of a pharmaceutical plant in a faraway country should actually be compensated due to a missile attack.

Because then it would mean the USA would have set the precedent - and every other nation whose individuals have been harmed by US action would be able to claim compensation, especially if their rulers at the time no longer rule.

quote:Sanctions were put on by the U.N. again this was the OPPOSITE of a unilateral action.

We've been over this before. I told you I doubt the degree of voluntariness in the UN's majoritarian voting on that resolution re: Iraq.

Why would the same UN whose General Assembly routinely majority-votes through resolutions condemning Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, turn around and vote through resolutions supporting sanctions against Iraq? I would put it to you that the internal contradiction could be resolved in the latter case if there was a lot of winknudging going on behind the scenes.

And you completely ignored the fact that the USA's specific stated objective was to boot Saddam Hussein out of power, and yet when rebels inside his country said they were ready, willing, and able to institute a government that would be more open to American interests, the US government denied them support.

Could it have had to do with the fact that channelling American attention away from domestic inequities aggravated by the Reagan era would require an external bogeyman, since Communism was on its last legs?

No, neeeeeeeeeeever. No sireebob.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 23 September 2001 12:22 PM
And here's one more, Zatamon...

quote:Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt....Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.

Sir Winston Churchill, Feb 9, 1941 -- Radio broadcast to his people.

In case you do not recognize those two historic figures, Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain; Roosevelt was the President of that big, horrendous, monstrous nation known as the United States of America -- U.S.A., for short.

And guess what?! That bloodthirsty nation (the USA) came up with the 'tools', and the Brits finished the 'job'.(Which is the main reason why the pseudo-intellectual crackpots have the liberty to write/publish their crap with impunity.)

posted 23 September 2001 01:03 PM
Zatamon, yours was a very good try. I applaud your efforts, even if they have not convinced Markbo. Others, such as myself are glad for the information that you have provided. It enables a more firm stance in the face of the emotional tide which seems to be sweeping things right now. Thank You.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 02:27 PM
Zatamon, why would you worry so much about my morality instead of the morality of the people who commit heinous acts of terrorism.

You want to give up, instead of responding. We are both framing the argument differently. We will never see the others point because we will never enter the others arena.

You want some concessions. No problem. The U.S. should do a far more concentrating on international relations. Special interest groups have hijacked U.S. international policy. (Especially when it comes to Cuba)

I gave a good post explaining consequentialism. You want us to change our behavior because of what the terrorists did to a way they would like more. That will only give them justification to do it again if they feel the need to change our behavior.

We need to make them understand that the consequences from their actions will not benefit them. We need to do it while we realize that one of their goals is to draw everybody into a holy war.

We also need to use bodies like the U.N. to make some real changes on undemocratic countries. We need to use those bodies to focus on the real injustices committed right now by the Taleban instead of focussing on bullshit issues like they did during the recent conference on racism.

We also have to make a decision. Is the precedents established by the treaty of Westphallia still relevent today. When does a country have the right to interfere with the Sovereignty of another country? when that country is killing its citizens?

What is your opinion on that? When would military intervention be allowed?

quote: You even say the USA should NEVER exhibit weakness, that it should respond from a position of strength.

What exactly did I say that resembles that ?

quote:We've been over this before. I told you I doubt the degree of voluntariness in the UN's majoritarian voting on that resolution re: Iraq.

Oh yeah I forgot about your delusionary conspiracy theory that has not been substantiated in any way. Sorry about that.

quote:Could it have had to do with the fact that channelling American attention away from domestic inequities aggravated by the Reagan era would require an external bogeyman, since Communism was on its last legs?No, neeeeeeeeeeever. No sireebob.

You should start your own conspiracy paper. I don't think you suffer from insanity, I think you enjoy every minute of it.

quote:You even say the USA should NEVER exhibit weakness, that it should respond from a position of strength.

What exactly did I say that resembles that ?

Now now, Markbo, don't be disingenuous. Any shrinking back from endorsement of a "thump-the-Taliban" approach gets an essay from you on how the USA has the absolute sovereign right to blow the bejeezus out of those guys.

quote:We've been over this before. I told you I doubt the degree of voluntariness in the UN's majoritarian voting on that resolution re: Iraq.

Oh yeah I forgot about your delusionary conspiracy theory that has not been substantiated in any way. Sorry about that.

I consider it to be within the bounds of probability that the USA may have manipulated the voting. Besides, we can look back at history at the superficial nature of some UN endorsements. Take the Korean War as an example. That wasn't even the General Assembly; it was the Security Council in 1950. Under the rules then prevalent if even one member of the S.C. voted no a resolution would fail. The Soviets abstained, allowing the USA to railroad through the endorsement of war on the Korean peninsula. Even then, an American general was placed at the head of the conflict (MacArthur), and the USA sent the bulk of the forces in that conflict. I don't have the stats offhand but I bet the percentage breakdown of the forces present would be lopsidedly in favor of the US, as opposed to a breakdown roughly on the basis of population percentages.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 23 September 2001 02:46 PM

quote:You want some concessions. No problem. The U.S. should do a far more concentrating on international relations. Special interest groups have hijacked U.S. international policy. (Especially when it comes to Cuba)

What special interest groups? Oil companies, big pharma, military-industrial complex? These or other "special interest groups" of your choice have hijacked U.S. foreign policy for what purpose? Perhaps something as straight forward as ignoble greed? Has it been hijacked or is in infact the decfacto intention of the big money players in the U.S. to have a firm grip on (their?) wealth, even if it means suffering for others in the world? It seems that U.S. foreign policy keeps changing according to where the possibility of profit drives it. And these "special interest groups" are made up of real flesh and blood Americans. Please don't turn them into abstractions and symbols; that's just what the hijackers and killers of 6,000 American citizens just did. Kinda makes it easier on the conscience.

posted 23 September 2001 02:49 PM
The "special interest groups" re Cuba that I think Markbo is thinking of are mostly rabid right-wing Cubans that seem to have nothing better to do than scream and yell whenever the USA proceeds to soften its stance on Cuba.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

quote:They are negotiating tough with the russians over an antibalistic missile treaty signed in 1972 The treaty is with Russia, not with anybody else. Do you think that once a treaty is signed it is wrong to ever try to negotiate a new one? Nonsense.

Just to clarify a bit, the US has no intention of negotiating a new treaty. They've announced their plan to abrogate the ABM treaty, for which the treaty provides, with six months' notice.

Any "negotiations" are aimed simply at getting Russia to go along with this plan, which it has expressed great reluctance to do.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 05:55 PM

quote: Any "negotiations" are aimed simply at getting Russia to go along with this plan, which it has expressed great reluctance to do.

If russia goes along with the plan then by definition they have a negotiated agreement.

On the Cuba stuff, I hate communism but instead of taking a stick and carrot approach to getting them to reform. I am probably closer in agreement to people here because I think that no carrot is being offered. If Cuba reforms, The U.S. is still making unreasonable reparations demands. If they would offer them something positive to change then I think it would be more helpfull.

As far as special interests, I also probably agree with you guys more than you think. Except that foreign relations are not only being manipulated by big business, they are being manipulated from groups of that countries populations which donate to congress.

quote:The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, requires six months of notification before either side can abrogate it, unless the two sides agree.

The US wants to be let out now so that they can proceed with NMD tests. But they're also arguing that the construction of a test site in Alaska doesn't violate ABM.

Also:

quote:administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, have made clear, they do not feel constrained by the need to come up with new treaty provisions if the Russians remain opposed to Bush's plans.

It's not negotiation. It's unilateralism. Again, that's allowed under the treaty, or rather unilateral abrogation with notice is allowed, whereupon all previous bets are off. But don't call it what it isn't.

It's true, however, that according to this story, dated July, Putin is more "amenable to compromise" than formerly. But I read it as surrending to the inevitable in the hope of salvaging something. If you have more recent information, I'd like to read it.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Captaffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1436

posted 23 September 2001 10:43 PM
Question:What is the alternative to the U.S. course of action?

If your answer is both sensible and achievable, you will win the respect of people throughout the world! You will also restore my faith in the left by proving that the left is capable of doing something other than critizing. Good luck!

quote: The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, requires six months of notification before either side can abrogate it, unless the two sides agree

So if the U.S. gives six months notice it wishes to abrogate the treaty it will not be violating it. Sounds like the treaty was made with acknowledgements that there could be a need to end it. The world has changed a lot in 29 years. Still doesn't smack of unilateralism to me.

posted 24 September 2001 01:06 PM
and here is another story on double standars (from ZNet).

...........................

"Turning now to the actual use of the phrase "the price is worth it," we come to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous.

Since the morning hours of Tuesday, September 11, the civilian dead in the WTC/Pentagon terrorist bombings have been the subject of the most intense and detailed and humanizing attention, making the suffering clear and dramatic and feeding in to the sense of outrage. In contrast, the hundreds of thousands of children dead in Iraq are very close to invisible, their suffering and dying are out of sight; and whereas the ratio of Iraqi children killed by sanctions to WTC/Pentagon deaths was better than 80 to 1, the ratio of media space devoted to the Iraqi children and WTC/Pentagon deaths has surely been better than 500 to one in favor of the smaller WTC/Pentagon casualties. Pictures of sufferers and expressions of pain and indignation have been in a similar ratio. The UN workers in Iraq like Dennis Halliday who have resigned in disgust at the effects of the "sanctions of mass destruction" have been given minimal space in the media to inform the public and express their outrage.

The "who" in the case of the Iraqi mass deaths is clear-- overwhelmingly the U.S. and British leadership--but the "who" here is irrelevant because of how the "why" is answered. This is done implicitly. Madeleine Albright said that the deaths are worth it because U.S. policy finds this to be so--and with Albright saying this is "why," that settles the matter for the media. Their indignation at the immorality of killing civilians as collateral damage to make a political point ends, because the Iraqi children die by U.S. policy choice--and in this case the media will not even allow the matter to be discussed. The per se unreasonableness of killing civilians as collateral damage is quietly set aside (reminding one of how the Soviet's shooting down of KAL 007 in 1983 was per se barbarian, but the U.S. shooting down of Iranian airliner 655 in 1988 was a "tragic error.") The media focus on whether Saddam Hussein will allow UN inspections to prevent him getting "weapons of mass destruction," not on the mass death of children. (And of course the media regularly fail to note that the United States and Britain had helped Saddam Hussein obtain such weapons in the 1980s, and didn't object to his using them, until he stopped following orders in August 1990.)

Because the media make the suffering and death of 500,000 children invisible, the outrage produced by the intense coverage of the WTC/Pentagon bombing victims does not surface on their behalf. The liberal historian who was so indignant at even asking "why" for the WTC-Pentagon bombings and argued that only "who" was pertinent has said nothing about the immorality of killing Iraqis; he is not interested in "who" in this case, partly because he does not have to see dying Iraqi children every day, and partly because his government has answered the "why" to his satisfaction, justifying mass death. Is it not morally chilling, even a bit frightening, that he, and the great mass of his citizen compatriots, can focus with such anguish and indignation on their own 6,000 dead, while ignorant of, or not caring about, or approving his (their) own government's ongoing killing of scores of times as many innocents abroad?

This reflects the work of a superb propaganda system. The U.S. government finding the mass death of Iraqi children "worth it," the media push the fate of these "unworthy victims" into the black hole, thereby allowing that policy to be continued without impediment. With the United States itself a victim of terrorism, here the reverse process ensues: with these ultra-worthy victims, the media feature their suffering and deaths intensively and are not interested in root causes, but only in "who" did it; they beat the war drums incessantly and push to the forefront the most regressive forces in the country, making violence and repression the probable outcome of their efforts. But they will sell papers, get larger audiences, support the "national interest," and prove to the rightwing that they are real Americans."

posted 24 September 2001 01:44 PM
Again, why would you allocate blame for the Suffering of the Iraqi people on the U.S.The blame lies squarely at the feet of Saddam. This is a man who built palaces while his people starve. A man who would defy the world at the cost of his people.

Remember all we did was show him that there were repercussions for cutting Iraq off from the world community. I say we but I mean the U.N. as they drafted the resolutions.

posted 24 September 2001 02:13 PM
As usual, Markbo misses the point. The theme of this entire thread is "Double Standards".

Here is the beginning of that article - illuminating this point of double moral standards better than I can.

...............................

Try to imagine how the mainstream U.S. media and intellectuals would respond to the disclosure that at an early planning meeting of the terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the question had come up about whether the "collateral damage" of prospectively thousands of dead civilians wouldn't be excessive, but that the matter had been settled with the top leader's response: "we think the price is worth it"?

Suppose further that the terrorists' leaders then set out to make their case to their followers, arguing that it was extremely important to show the citizens of the Great Satan that they were not immune to attack on their own land--that they could not continue to bomb others freely and support the violent states of their choice without suffering some retaliation themselves. The terrorists argued that, as the Great Satan has been conducting low- (and often not so low) -intensity wars against the Third World and Arab states for decades, the planned attacks would be both just and legal under international law, justifiable under the UN Charter's grant of the right of self-defense, which He has relied on so often to excuse his own unilateral actions.

The leaders argued further that since the symbolic value of showing the Great Satan's vulnerability by attacking the WTC and Pentagon would be greatly enhanced by taking out several thousand civilians, this must be regarded as acceptable collateral damage. Finally, imagine the terrorists' leaders explaining to their followers that for the sake of global peace and security, no less than the welfare of peoples the world over, it is crucial to raise the costs of imperial violence, and help persuade the Great Satan's population to ask Him to terminate His wars. This, the terrorist leaders argued, would in the long run save far more lives than those lost in the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon.

Wouldn't the mainstream media and intellectuals be wild with indignation at the inhumanity of the terrorists' coldblooded calculus? Wouldn't they respond in one voice that it is absolutely immoral, evil, and indefensible per se to kill civilians on a massive scale to make a political point? And as to the terrorists' underlying argument that the attacks were justified both as retaliation for the Great Satan's ongoing wars and as part of an effort to curb His imperial violence, wouldn't this be rejected as outlandish? Wouldn't establishment spokespersons rush to claim that despite occasional regrettable mistakes this country has behaved well in international affairs, has intervened abroad only in just causes, and is the victim of terrorism, not a terrorist state or supporter of terrorism? And wouldn't it also be stressed that it is immoral and outrageous to even SPEAK of a "just cause" or any give any kind of legitimation for a terrorist action such as occurred in New York and Washington? That the only question in such a case of violence is "who," not "why"? (These last two sentences are a paraphrase of the indignant argument of a U.S. liberal historian.) And in fact, across the board the U.S. mainstreamers have refused to talk about "why" except for superficial denunciations of an irrational enemy that hates democracy, etc.

posted 24 September 2001 04:18 PM
There is no double standard as the Taleban and the terrorist organizations have made immoral and unjust demands that cannot be responded to.

They have demanded that all non-islamic peoples leave islamic territory or they should be killed and citizens of the countries that are on islamic territories should be killed solely because they don't like the way they vote in elections.

We on the other hand have demanded that they stop killing. We have demanded that they stop training people to kill civillians. So far we have not bombed civillians in Afghanistan.

I see no moral double standards. I see immoral demands by the Taleban.

posted 24 September 2001 05:13 PM
First I would like to condemn the whole premise of this thread. It was designed to primarily be antagonistic to Markbo, and though I frequently disagree with him, I see no reason for this kind of antagonism, or to borrow a phrase from zatamon him/herself, "school yard bulllying". You've disapointed me.

Second, though I object to the heart of this thread, I would like to thank zatamon for the list of events/CIA missteps. It was very informative.

posted 24 September 2001 05:23 PM
meades, you are absolutely right and I apologize for picking on Markbo. I just get so frustrated with his constantly missing my point. But that is no excuse. I will stop doing it immediately.

However, you are wrong about 'that' being the premise of this thread. I really want to point out the existence of 'arrogance' and 'double standards' in the US media, leadership and those who follow them.

posted 24 September 2001 05:47 PM
I find it interesting that the left is "concerned" for half a million children starving while at the same time advocate abortion where a same equal number of kids are killed. Makes real sense to me.
From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 06:04 PM

quote:Markbo, we are talking about the lives of 500,000 thousand children directly as a result of sanctions. You think it is worth it? Sorry, you are losing me.Again, that is a half-million children. there is a double-standard markbo. terror is terror no matter the source. Too bad you cannot see that.

I hope everybody (except Markbo) understands the point I was trying to make regarding double standards.Let me summarize:

- If the US does it, it is acceptable price.

I don't miss your point Zatamon I just think it is dead wrong. The U.S. did not do anything. Saddam Hussein caused the suffering of his people not the U.S.Remember Saddam and the Taleban use these civillians as shields. They put them in harms way. Just today I read how the Taleban confiscated all the Food the U.N. was distributing to people. The U.S. didn't confiscate the food. They probably paid for most of it. (Largest contributer of aid to Afghanistan was the U.S.)

If any civilians are killed in the military action by the U.S. it is the Taleban that is to blame. They can stop it, they are not powerless, they have full control. The only way the U.S. can stop it is to allow terrorism to continue. Not an option.

Saddam Husseing and the Iraqi government is solely responsible for the deaths of 500,000 of its civillians. It let them suffer while it defied the world and the U.N. (NOT THE US) and built palaces. I'm suprised theres no quotes of Saddam actually saying "let them eat cake"

Zatamon, you have listed problems. What are your solutions? I have given mine, What are yours? I'll gladly take my lumps, care for a go?

Come on lets hear it. Will you say the U.S. should give in to terrorist demands. THats always worked well in the past to prevent more terrorist attacks. PLEASE NOTE SARCASM

posted 24 September 2001 06:24 PM
It is my understanding the there are no demands to be met. This is a different construct than any old war or previous terrorist acts. I'm sure you will argue that there are de facto demands, namely that we change western foreign policy, but since Markbo you are so often a stickler for details let's be clear that there are no demands being made of any nation [edited to add "by the terrorists"].

[edited] The terrorists have not, in point of fact, threatened any further violence.

So, if the terrorists don't want anything and haven't stated that they will attack again, what's the big deal? What might they want? Well, consider that at present the group of people who perpetrated these attacks are being portrayed as extremists, perhaps they are looking for some legitimacy. Markbo, last week you asked me to consider that maybe GWB is right. I would ask you to consider that the terrorists may be looking for an excuse to call for escalation and that military action affords such an opportunity. Violence begets violence, this is no exception.

posted 24 September 2001 06:28 PM
JCL: I consider life to start at birth. You need not force your religious beliefs on the rest of us, and try and make it look like we have double standards when we don't. IMHO, life starts at the first breath, and I don't apreciate people telling me my religious beliefs are wrong.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 24 September 2001 06:29 PM
Just a remark to JCL. Abortion is not something that one 'advocates'. However there are many reasons why abortion is practiced. I would guess for the most part it is something a woman thinks about very carefully. The 'potential' child's welfare is in the balance.

I think that starving children are for more important than potential children. I think too that a woman has the right to take responsibility of her own body.

posted 24 September 2001 07:17 PM
If these threads turn into an abortion argument we will all probably lose.

quote: Read all you can get your hands on. Sanctions killed those children. Saddam might be the target, innocent Iraqis are the victims.

It truly amazes me you can have so much sympathy for the victims of New York and not one visible shred for any others

Wrong, I totally feel for the Iraqi people as well as the Afghanistan people. I think Saddam should be targeted personally for putting them through their suffering.

I also feel an incredible amount of sympathy towards the people of Afghanistan. Not only that but anger at the Taleban.

Remember the people of Afghanistan suffered at the hands of the Taleban long before the WTC tragedy. We should not continue to let them suffer under the Taleban regardless of the WTC. They're treatment of women is despicable and ridiculous in this day and age. If you think about it, its tantamount to slavery.

I feel sorry enough for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to want to do something to end the tyrrany of those who oppress them. It seems like your sympathy does not go so far.

Coincidentally, I have not jumped on the propaganda bandwagon of the moment. Those who read my posts know that I was arguing against sharia law way before the WTC Attack.

Sharia law and the perversion of the Quran is at the heart of this problem. We need the cooperation of the people of the Islamic faith to help prevent their religion from being used as justification for mass murder and oppression.

Our relation with muslim countries is more important than ever. Most of them are onside in this war against terrorism. We need to show these terrorists that Quran does not condone their actions.

posted 24 September 2001 07:25 PM
Oh, Markbo, if only they let us solve the problems of the world. My sympathy I think goes further. If the U.S. does have a valid argument with any nation, then let them use legal methods to deal with them. Including sanctions, isolation, or as a very last resort, war.

But sanctions should never include foods or medicines. And the U.S should use all means to ensure foods and medicines are delivered.

And just in case you missed the quotes, here they are agin:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

The price that is "worth it" Markbo is 500,000 children. How can that ever be worth it for political reasons?

posted 24 September 2001 07:40 PM
Sounds like a stupid comment by Albright, you wont catch me trying to defend it. But why put the blame on the U.S. The sanctions were made by the U.N.

Number 2. There was an oil for food program. How much food do you think failed to make it to those children let alone the instances where Saddam temporarily ended the program.

You want to use legal means. Well sorry, the countries we are opposing don't wish to cooperate. Also, what sanctions could possibly work on afghanistan. The U.N. had sanctions on Afghanistan since 1999. Lot of good thats done. How many women and children lost their lives at the hands of the Taleban since then. How many more will die because they wait for your sanctions to work.

posted 24 September 2001 07:58 PM
All right, Markbo, I will answer. I am not trying to convince you any more, I have given that up. But you wrote to me politely and it deserves an answer (also I feel slightly guilty for picking on you a bit earlier).

What I find so very frustrating about arguing with you is what I could call shooting at a moving target.

(I often put them into point form so they are easy to refer to without repetition).

And then I expect you to come back saying something like: “I disagree with your stating C as a fact. Your logical conclusion 3 was built on the assumption of C being a fact. Logical conclusion 4 was built on 2 and 3, therefore I don’t see it proven… therefore I disagree with P”

Instead, you start talking about X and Y and Z and point Q. See what I mean?

Lets look at an example.

On this thread I want to prove double standards. I go about as follows:

Fact A: U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996: Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Fact B: Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Fact C: US Mainstream media calls the terrorist attack on US (causing the death of say 6300 innocent civilians) an evil, ruthless, cold-blooded massacre.

Logical conclusion: - If the US does it, it is acceptable price (to achieve further goals). If anyone else does it (even on a much smaller scale), it is evil, ruthless, cold-blooded massacre.

Point proven: There is double standard applied by the US media and leadership.

And here comes your answer:

quote:“Again, why would you allocate blame for the Suffering of the Iraqi people on the U.S. The blame lies squarely at the feet of Saddam. This is a man who built palaces while his people starve. A man who would defy the world at the cost of his people. Remember all we did was show him that there were repercussions for cutting Iraq off from the world community. I say we but I mean the U.N. as they drafted the resolutions. “

See what I mean?

I was not talking about who to blame at all!!!!!!!

I was talking about double standard in the media reporting the two different events: US sanction in Iraq and terrorist attack on US.

I hope to God, you see what I mean. It is almost impossible to believe that anyone could miss the point I am trying to make now (that you miss my points) unless deliberately.

For further clarification, here is an essay I wrote on the subject of finding Truth (as opposed to argue for argument’s sake or the sake of appearing to be the winner).

……………………………

... I often hear people argue about their country. I have heard educated, intelligent people try to explain it on television, in books, in speeches. What bothers me in all of these attempts at understanding is the almost total lack of reference points. The body of explanation is floating in air, without an anchor in reality. We do not have a starting point about which we agree.

If I ask anyone in Canada to define the basic principles by which our society is organized, I get different answers. Some say it is a democracy, some say it is capitalistic, most would agree that it is a nice place to live (we Canadians are very proud to be ‘nice people’ .

If I ask them about the problems we have, I really get an earful: Too much taxation, too much government, too soft on criminals, too much corruption, too much poverty, etc., etc.

And when I ask, "Too much, compared to what?" -- no answer. How do we define what is normal, what is acceptable? By what principle, by what yardstick?

Nobody knows. We just don’t like something for personal reasons and we call it too ‘something’.

Take taxation. Everyone agrees that we pay too many taxes, too high a proportion of our income. What would be the right proportion? Why pay taxes at all? And if we do, what is the right amount? Should it be the same for everyone or should it be progressive? If yes, how progressive? Why? How do we calculate what is fair? Everyone who ever filled out a tax return knows that tax laws are insanely complicated. Who made them, based on what principle, what criteria?

We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions.

Our opponents in the discussion aren't any better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We just keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements to put in one of our own - nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start.

Quite often the purpose is to score points instead of solve problems. We treat the discourse as a contest we must win, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody be a winner.

This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.

If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves.

It just doesn't work.

It can't.

The scientific method, which was so marvellously successful over the centuries in creating our achievements in areas of technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems: be they in science, technology, politics, or psychology.

We have to have a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or soon find a point of disagreement.

Work on that point, until we find a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.

In the case of taxation, we would have to ask some basic questions first, before going into details or percentages:

"What are the essence, purpose, goals and priorities of a human society?"

"What are the basically different options for organizing people?"

"What are the advantages and disadvantages of these options?"

"Which of the options do we chose?"

"What is the optimum way to implement this option?"

If we answered these questions, the rest would be easy. Basic facts, simple logic, and some arithmetic would provide the answers.

posted 24 September 2001 08:25 PM
Zatamon, sure your conclusion logically follows from your premises but I do not accept your premises. If I prove your premises are flawed than I can logically attack the conclusions that you draw from these faulty premises.

Lets start analyzing your false premises a s there are many.

Number #1. You believe that Madeline Albright's comments reflect the policy of the government when they were only answers to a tricky question.

You imply that her comments can be translated to "we attacked and killed 500,000 Iraqi children" which I do not believe thay can

You say ther is a double standare because the media hasn't called the deaths of Iraqi children an "evil, ruthless cold blooded massacre"

Number one: it wasn't, Number two if it was it would be a massacre performed by Saddam, not the U.S.

Because I would like to help you construct logical arguments I will make one for you .First of all you are constructing two separate arguments

Premise A: I believe that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were caused by U.N. sanctions alone.

Premise B: Because I, as Zatamon state this it should be accepted as fact by all people.

Premise C: I believe that those deaths should be labelled an "evil, ruthless cold blooded massacre".

Conclusion: Those who categorize the WTC attack use a double standard when using the terms ""evil, ruthless cold blooded massacre"

Argument 2:

Premise A: The U.S. solely controls the U.N. through Madeline Albright.

Premise B: The U.N sanctions against Iraq can only be labelled as "evil, ruthless cold blooded massacre" as opposed to a worldwide recognized legal means by which to influence the policies of a government.

Premise C: The WTC attacks are "evil, ruthless cold blooded massacre"

Conclusion: the U.N. Sanctions on Iraq are really the same as the WTC attacks.

In reality you should take the University of Windsor's first year course entitled the Philosphy of logic, I believe it can help you in the future.

You don't need to fully answer the questions you ask to form a taxation policy. There would be no more consensus on the answers to those questions than there is on existing government policies.

But when you ask if taxes are too high "compared to what" the answer is simple.

Compared to the countries that we have to compete with to attract investment and higher qualified immigrants (doctors, scientists etc...)

posted 24 September 2001 08:47 PM
Markbo, you missed it again. The point I was trying to prove in my last post was not the earlier one that there is double standard (I just used it as an example to illustrate what I meant).

My point was: we can't communicate because you miss the points I am trying to make!!!

My proof for this was:

Fact A. I was talking about double standards

Fact B. In you reply I quoted you were talking about blame.

Conclusion: you were not answering my points but started talking about something entirely different (who is to blame) that I never once mentioned.

So now, instead of admitting that I was actually right: you did not respond to my point, you take up an argument with a previous post which at this point is irrelevant.

The only thing I am talking about now is a method of communication. !!!

Unless we agree to answer each other (Instead of coming back with something quite different, as if it was an answer - and it does not have to be in a logical flow-diagram either) there is no point talking.

posted 24 September 2001 08:53 PM
P.S. Apart from having a MS in Theoretical Physics and having studied almost all formal subjects on logic and math, I spent the last 30 years building logical structures, computer simulations, detailed systems analyses for various NA corporations who have paid for my services extremely well. So much for attending beginner classes in logic.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 08:58 PM

quote: Fact A. I was talking about double standards

Fact B. In you reply I quoted you were talking about blame.

Zatamon, I attacked your premises, one of which has to do with blame. That is the way you begin to analyze.

You want me to agree that your right because your conclusion logically follows from your premises. I cannot get to that point because I cannot get past the faulty premises.

ONce I get to the point where I accept your premise that the U.S. is responsible for the suffering of 500,000 Iraqi children then I will begin to argue why there is no double standard. Right now since I reject your premise, there is no point progressing to the next step.

Thats like saying that because the sky is green and the grass is blue, I am right.

WHy argue whether it follows that I am right when you would first reject that the sky is green and the grass is blue.

posted 24 September 2001 08:59 PM
PS2. I really think it is hopeless. Lets not waste each other's (and everybody else's) time. It is very tiring going around in circles with you. I am sure you mean well.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 09:04 PM
Who is being naive markbo?

The U.S. did not, does not, and for the forseeable future, will not want Saddam out.If they did, this could have been achieved. Iraq, with Saddam, presents a buffer against Iran and maintains order against minority groups like the Kurds, who do, in fact, want Saddam out.

The people of Iraq are paying a horrible price with their lives and you seem perfectly okay with that.

As for Afghanistan, recently, on the news in the propaganda battle, I have seen a woman, in a square, being executed. You know where I had seen that before? Many months ago. On a web site run by Afghani women trying to drum up support against the policiies of the Taliban. Where was your outrage then? More importantly where was the outrage of the U.S. Oh right, they didn't care.

Why not use democratic means? Why not ask the Afghani people such as the woman who have the most to both gain and lose what approach should be taken? Or how we could help in restoring a democratic government to Afghanistan?

posted 24 September 2001 09:21 PM
One last post to you Markbo: It is theoretically possible that you know what you are talking about, except you just can't express it in a clear, well-organized, articulate way.

Whatever the cause (problems with logic, problems with English or something else) you are one of the very few people I have not been able to communicate with constructively about anything.

Too bad, but we both have to accept our limitations.

This was my last note to you, I am sure we will continue reading each others' posts in the future, but please don't try to argue with me - I won't be sucked in again.

However, I promise I won't make snide remarks at your expense in the future.

quote: Who is being naive markbo?The U.S. did not, does not, and for the forseeable future, will not want Saddam out.If they did, this could have been achieved. Iraq, with Saddam, presents a buffer against Iran and maintains order against minority groups like the Kurds, who do, in fact, want Saddam out.

Since were being logical here you are assuming because the U.S. did not kill Saddam, they like him. It does not follow. The U.S. did bomb his palaces and I believe they did try to kill him.

They also instituted a no fly zone to protect the kurds. It would be bad policy to militarally ally with the kurds because if the Kurds killed civillians the U.S. would be blamed

quote: The people of Iraq are paying a horrible price with their lives and you seem perfectly okay with that.

As I stated before I feel sorry for them. In fact I feel so outraged for them I want the person responsible for their suffering killed. That person is Saddam Hussein

quote: Where was your outrage then?

I have consistently condemned the use of sharia law on this website

My post from September 3rd (note that that was before the attack) on rabble

quote: Not all countries who follow islam follow sharia law. The Qu'ran from what I understand is a pretty darn good read. For instance Turkey is a mainly islamic country that separates its legal system from sharia.

My main complaint is apostacy is punishable by death. What choice does that give oppressed women in those countries. Either be oppressed or die? I am not a bigot but countries should not be allowed to hide behind their religion or culture in order to justify oppressing other members of society.

Hows that for consistency?

quote:More importantly where was the outrage of the U.S. Oh right, they didn't care.

I believe that Clinton didn't care although now he says he tried to have Bin Laden killed but failed.

quote:Why not use democratic means? Why not ask the Afghani people such as the woman who have the most to both gain and lose what approach should be taken? Or how we could help in restoring a democratic government to Afghanistan?

quote:I find it interesting that the left is "concerned" for half a million children starving while at the same time advocate abortion where a same equal number of kids are killed. Makes real sense to me.

Well then you must hate me because I routinely advocate that as compensation to women for dealing with the trauma of abortion and such self-righteous tub-thumpers as yourself, that all such women who get abortions should get $200 in addition to having the procedure paid for by the government.

I'm a man. I'll never have to undergo the agony of trying to decide whether I would be better off to abort a fetus or to carry it to term. But I will not stand idly by while people like you huff and puff about the immorality of aborting fetuses (and please note, that an abortion, by definition, applies only to a fetus which has not exited the monther) and then proceed to inflict even more pain and agony on women by standing outside abortion clinics yelling and hollaring and in general making a scene.

And then to add insult to injury I have not seen one anti-abortionist willingly commit to adopting a child.

I have seldom seen such finger-wagging sanctimoniousness from even the most right-wing of right-wingers but anti-abortionists seem to possess that talent in spades.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 10:08 PM

quote: Since were being logical here you are assuming because the U.S. did not kill Saddam, they like him. It does not follow.

They might not like him. They do like him there. Saddam has been a valuable ally to the U.S. in the past. He even sought their permission before invading Kuwait. The U.S. pursues a policy of real politic in the mid-east. It should not suprise you that they do not want Saddam out. What should surprise you is the lengths they will go to create an appearance otherwise.

quote:They also instituted a no fly zone to protect the kurds.

How decent of them. But of course Iraqi helicopters are okay.

quote:It would be bad policy to militarally ally with the kurds because if the Kurds killed civillians the U.S. would be blamed

That is a joke. Again, review your history. The U.S. has allied with the Kurds when it was in their interests. Then they abandoned them to Saddam's military and gas. The U.S. has a long history of exploiting regional and ethnic divisions for their own purposes and then leaving the consequences to those least able to manage them.

quote:I believe that Clinton didn't care although now he says he tried to have Bin Laden killed but failed.

And Bush does? Last May his administration gave the Taliban $48 million. My God! They care. They care only now. Now that Americans have died they care. Suddenly they have noticed that the Taliban are a monstrous regime. They still don't care. Only enough to exact some vengeance. We will see.

quote:SIMPLE, BECAUSE AFGHANI WOMEN WOULD BE KILLED FOR ANSWERING

You are a bright fellow Markbo. But dumb answer. Where do you think the women who launched the web site and others like them are? In Kabul? Not freakin' likely. They are exiles. There is a large Afghani exile population. Consult them. Ask them what is the best thing we can do to help them restore democracy.

posted 24 September 2001 10:12 PM
The people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with Osama and his accomplices

On September 11, 2001 the world was stunned with the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States. RAWA stands with the rest of the world in expressing our sorrow and condemnation for this barbaric act of violence and terror. RAWA had already warned that the United States should not support the most treacherous, most criminal, most anti-democracy and anti-women Islamic fundamentalist parties because after both the Jehadi and the Taliban have committed every possible type of heinous crimes against our people, they would feel no shame in committing such crimes against the American people whom they consider "infidel". In order to gain and maintain their power, these barbaric criminals are ready to turn easily to any criminal force.

But unfortunately we must say that it was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama Bin Laden has been the blue-eyed boy of CIA. But what is more painful is that American politicians have not drawn a lesson from their pro-fundamentalist policies in our country and are still supporting this or that fundamentalist band or leader. In our opinion any kind of support to the fundamentalist Taliban and Jehadies is actually trampling democratic, women's rights and human rights values.

If it is established that the suspects of the terrorist attacks are outside the US, our constant claim that fundamentalist terrorists would devour their creators, is proved once more.

The US government should consider the root cause of this terrible event, which has not been the first and will not be the last one too. The US should stop supporting Afghan terrorists and their supporters once and for all.

Now that the Taliban and Osama are the prime suspects by the US officials after the criminal attacks, will the US subject Afghanistan to a military attack similar to the one in 1998 and kill thousands of innocent Afghans for the crimes committed by the Taliban and Osama? Does the US think that through such attacks, with thousands of deprived, poor and innocent people of Afghanistan as its victims, will be able to wipe out the root-cause of terrorism, or will it spread terrorism even to a larger scale?

From our point of view a vast and indiscriminate military attacks on a country that has been facing permanent disasters for more than two decades will not be a matter of pride. We don't think such an attack would be the expression of the will of the American people.

The US government and people should know that there is a vast difference between the poor and devastated people of Afghanistan and the terrorist Jehadi and Taliban criminals.

While we once again announce our solidarity and deep sorrow with the people of the US, we also believe that attacking Afghanistan and killing its most ruined and destitute people will not in any way decrease the grief of the American people. We sincerely hope that the great American people could DIFFERENTIATE between the people of Afghanistan and a handful of fundamentalist terrorists. Our hearts go out to the people of the US.

PESHAWAR, Sept 14: The Revolutionary Afghan Women's Association has urged the United Nations and the US to impose effective ban on arms supply to Taliban and the opposition Northern Alliance.

Speaking to newsmen at a local hotel on Wednesday, Sahar Saba, a spokesman for the association said peace and stability could not be restored in Afghanistan until the supply of "guns and money" to the warlords was stopped.

The Rawa had been struggling for the democratic rule and peace in the war-torn country since 1979 but the outside forces had been supporting their "stooges" and played havoc with the life of the innocent Afghans, she added.

She maintained that the US provided financial and military support for the so-called Mujahideen during the former Soviet occupation and created from among them the Taliban movement. "The US economic sanctions against the Taliban are counter-productive, harming common people and strengthening fundamentalist forces fighting under the banner of Taliban", she added.

The courageous stance taken by the Rawa members, Ms Saba said, had provoked all the fundamentalist forces and they had tried to eliminate some of them physically. Earlier, she said, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, Maulavi Younus Khalis, Maulavi Rasool Siaf and others turned the country into rubble in the name of religion, now the same was being done under the aegis of Taliban.

RAWA for early solution of imbroglio

The Nation, September 14, 2000From Our Correspondent

PESHAWAR - a two-member delegation of Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) has made its best to convince the western world in favor of wishes of war affected people from Afghanistan who are in favor of early return of peace and stability.

"Both Taliban and Jehadic elements have become puppets in the hands of those foreign forces who are interfering in affairs of Afghanistan, therefore, it could be impossible for its leaders and stalwarts to govern that country."

Saba Sehar along with Ms. Sajida had undertaken a four months long tour of United States of America and Switzerland where they besides attending a number of international meetings and gatherings on Afghanistan, had meetings with the high ranking authorities, parliamentarians, human rightists, intellectuals and others.

In Switzerland, RAWA delegates attended the 52nd Convention of United Nations Human Rights wing where they described in depth the situation in Afghanistan as well as threats to lives of the Afghans in other foreign countries.

Beside RAWA, the Northern Alliance had also sent nominee to such a conference and she focused all her speech on the policies of Taliban but we had diverted attention of the audience towards negative and unrealistic policies of both Taliban and Mujahideen, she said that they believed that neither Taliban nor Mujahideen are acceptable to the war-affected people of Afghanistan.

In response to a question, Saba Saher said that it was crystal clear that Taliban and Mujahideen are following dictation of foreign countries. In this respect, they told the foreign countries and public opinion makers to impose economic restrictions against these foreign countries.

When diverted her attention towards Rome and Cyprus Conference, Saba Saher said, "we are in favor of Loya Jirga and other political ways and means for resolving the conflict, but we believe that in presence of these extremists like Taliban and Mujahideen all such efforts are useless and meaningless."

Saba Sahar dispelled the impression that Taliban are ruling more than 95 percent of Afghanistan and they have established peaceful atmosphere in their governed areas. In fact, she added that Taliban have converted Afghanistan into a big prison house where they have make millions of Afghans as their hostages.

Afghanistan today is a big prison for women: RAWA

The Nation, September 15, 2000

PESHAWAR (Online) - Activist of Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), Sehar Saba has said that despite sanctions on Afghanistan, the Taliban and other warring factions inside Afghanistan managed to get economic, military and diplomatic support from the world.

Addressing a Press conference after her four month tour to the US amidst to inform the world community that why more freedom for women in Afghanistan, who are barred by law from education, healthcare and employment, was needed. She was also accompanied by Sajida Hayat -the first spokeswomen to travel to the US for RAWA. They relay tales of Afghan girls and women living in virtual house arrest under the governing Taliban's and other warring factions.

She informed that her visit was sponsored by Feminist Majority Foundation with an aim to let the world community that since the Taliban militia seized control in 1996, women and girls in Afghanistan had been subject to severe repression.

Sehar Saba who was reluctant for a pose to the media told that photographs in newspapers would add further problems for her adding that today Afghanistan was a big prison for women.

She said that it was a misconception to assume that peace existed in Afghanistan adding that neither Taliban nor the Northern Alliance representing the Afghan nation. She, however, added that despite poor rule, Zahir Shah has still remembered by the Afghan people.

Commenting on her four-month visit to the US, she said that after the withdrawal of Russian troops, today people in America did not know much about Afghanistan.

She said that their visit had also been highlighted in the American press. The interpersonal communication with the American people helped a lot to highlight the plight of the Afghan women.

She said that the American were not ready to believe that in Afghanistan law forbid women from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a male relative.

She termed her visit to the states a great success and added that RAWA being a political organization protecting the rights of women inside Afghanistan totally regretted claims rather believe in practical steps.

quote: What should surprise you is the lengths they will go to create an appearance otherwise.

WHat basis do you have to make this allegation. Simply because hes not dead, they must desire him to stay. I doubt it.

quote:How decent of them. But of course Iraqi helicopters are okay.

Sounds like they just screwed up. Why do lefties think that if they show incompetence it must be a conpiracy

quote:Gradually, the US began to justify the southern no-fly zone more as a means of reassuring its allies in the Gulf that Iraqi planes would be kept far away from their airspace. Then, under the Clinton administration's policy of "containment" of Iraq, both no-fly zones became part of the vague objective to "keep up the pressure on Saddam." In the north, the CIA began to support efforts by Iraqi opposition groups to stage an attack and possibly a coup attempt from Iraqi Kurdistan.

The result of this ill-judged effort was an Iraqi military incursion into Erbil in September 1996, the first major movement of Iraqi troops into the Kurdish-controlled zone since 1991. Opposition members fled or were killed and all UN humanitarian aid personnel left the north. Instead of challenging the short-lived Iraqi incursion, or attacking the advancing Iraqi troops, the US chose to attack targets in the south and unilaterally extend the southern no-fly zone to the 33rd parallel. As the Bush administration moves to support the Iraqi opposition in its attempt to operate once again inside the northern no-fly zone, and across the Iranian border into the south, it would be well-advised not to forget the past history of "adventures" in the no-fly zones.

quote:That is a joke. Again, review your history. The U.S. has allied with the Kurds when it was in their interests.

I don't believe they were scrutinized like they are now in everything they do.

quote:And Bush does? Last May his administration gave the Taliban $48 million.

Please list the source for this reference.

quote:You are a bright fellow Markbo. But dumb answer. Where do you think the women who launched the web site and others like them are? In Kabul? Not freakin' likely. They are exiles. There is a large Afghani exile population.

Do you think they represent all Afghani Women? What is their number compared to the number that are suffering in Afghanistan.

I don't believe their methods will work. They have no clear demands other than money.Although I found this somewhat common demand.

quote:If Western countries are honestly and truly committed to peace and justice in Afghanistan and wish to aid and support the people of Afghanistan, particularly Afghan women who are the prime victims of fundamentalist-terrorist tyranny and terror, then they are morally bound to extradite each and every Khalqi, Parchami, Jihadi and Taliban bigwig holed up on their territories and deliver them to an international tribunal to answer for the unspeakably cruel wounds they have inflicted on the collective body and soul of the Afghan people -wound which go much deeper than the rabid fangs of "dogs" such as Zardad and his like.

Does that not sound similar to the demands of the U.S.

Except that the RAWA did not give an "or else". The U.S. did.

In the end, eliminating the Taleban rule will help oppressed women. Sanctions have not worked yet, and indiscriminate bombing has not worked yet. Lets hope that the U.S. has a new strategy that will work.

So far we do not know the full scope of the military portion of that strategy. You can't condemn them yet for something they haven't done. So far their response has been admirable

posted 25 September 2001 12:36 PM
Did you read even a portion of this board before posting? People have been suggesting any number of plausible alternatives to sending B-52s over Afghanistan.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 25 September 2001 12:54 PM
O well, if you're predisposed to think that classical set-piece warfare is of much use against terrorism, no other suggestions will seem plausible. If your only tool is a BUF, everything looks like Cambodia.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged

Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 25 September 2001 01:01 PM
Captaffy, here is my solution you have asked for (also posted in the "Five Reasons against War" thresd).

The solution is very simple. Honour the agreements that exist among nations on how to deal with situations like that.

Respect international law.

If we find that international law is inadequate, then work democratically with other nations to improve the laws (it would be a good start if the US started paying its dues to the UN). It may be slow, but it is the only safe and moral way.

I find it so hard to understand that so many people respect the law within their own country and totally disregard it outside (among nations).

It is the same moral issue, both within and outside. Lets be consistent.

If I don't go after a burgler with a shotgun myself, hunt him down and shoot him down (with his family and whoever is nearby) but report him to the police and let the slow wheels of justice prevail, then why do I want to do the opposite when it comes to other nations?

It is beyond me to understand this obvious and glaring contradiction.

It is also a question of honour (an unknown world these days).

We have signed those international laws, we have agreed to support and uphold them, we have given our word to keep those agreements, and then we trample them into the mud without a second of doubt whether it is right to do so.

posted 25 September 2001 01:37 PM
To clarify for those who are concerned about respecting International law:

"To be sure, the UN Charter allows countries to act in self-defense which would permit the United States to shoot down a terrorist plane [over her territory], for example.

But it has long been clear UN doctrine that self-defense does not allow countries to themselves launch massive reprisal raids -- precisely because to allow such reprisals would lead to an endless cycle of unrestrained violence".

If I don't go after a burgler (or rapist or murderer) with a shotgun myself, hunt him down and shoot him down (with his family and whoever is nearby) but report him to the police and let the slow wheels of justice prevail, then why do I want to do the opposite when it comes to other nations?

quote: Sources inside the Security Council say the 15 member nations unanimously agreed that their Sept. 12 resolution condemning the attacks also endorsed an initial military response by the United States, and that Washington requires no further UN permission to act.

The change has come about, say the sources, because Washington's approach to retaliation appears to be "measured" and "in the spirit" of the resolution.